The problem of nationalism (according to the text by L. Zhukhovitsky) (Unified State Examination in Russian). Nationalism as a problem of management and social regulation Tatyana Yurievna Korobeynikova
The tasks of our work include short description history of the issue (Chapter 1), a presentation of the most striking approaches to the consideration of nationalism within the framework of political psychology and social psychology(Chapter 2), as well as an analysis of the main results and key issues psychological study nationalism.
Just as during the Soviet period, nationalism existed simultaneously among supporters of the government, its opponents, and within itself and its administrative apparatus, in modern Russia It is impossible to say definitely where the source of “Russian nationalism” is. Speeches that are classified as “nationalist” come from a wide variety of places and spaces. Nationalism is polyphonic, in other words, everyone has their own nationalism: there is the nationalism of the losers as a result of post-Soviet reforms, which is expressed in protest voting for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or for Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party; there is the nationalism of the political elites who supported the patriotic call of United Russia, combining nostalgia for the Soviet Union and post-Soviet realities; there is the nationalism of the poorly educated and disadvantaged youth, which expresses itself in acts of skinhead violence; and finally, the nationalism of the urban middle class - which, by the way, was the last to appear on the scene, pro-European and democratic in nature, but at the same time xenophobic - the spokesmen of which were the national democrats
In the second half of the 1970s, the focus of research on nationalism shifted from 19th-century Russia to contemporary Soviet society. This was the merit of such an author as Alexander Yanov, who tried for many years to draw attention to the phenomenon, which they defined as “the revival of Russian nationalism.” He studied a trend that seemed paradoxical to him: the growing interest among Soviet dissidents in topics that were considered nationalist, which was expressed in reference to the imperial past and in the protection of historical and natural monuments, as well as a parallel growing attention to the same topics among the “official” Soviet intelligentsia, manifested mainly in literature (“village prose”) and in the visual arts, approved by the party Mitrokhin N. “Russian Party”: The Movement of Russian Nationalists in the USSR 1953-1985. - M.: NLO, 2003. - P. 25..
The years of perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union became a kind of golden age for research in the field of “nationalism,” which was no longer limited to Russia, but embraced all the peoples of the USSR.
Political and social upheavals in the newly emerged countries were interpreted as the “awakening” of peoples who were under Russian oppression, which was called “chauvinistic”. Thus, nationalism was viewed within a binary framework: the nationalism of non-Russian peoples, because it was democratic and anti-colonial, was considered “healthy”, as were the “popular fronts” of the Gorbachev era, while the nationalism of Russians was defined as conservative, autocratic and colonial , the symbol of which was the anti-Semitic “Pamyat”, the main organization of Russian nationalists. About the “Memory” organization, see: Korey W. Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat and the Demonology of Zionism. Harwood Academic Publishers for the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study
of Antisemitism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995. See also: Likhachev V. Political Anti-Semitism in Post-Soviet Russia: Actors and Ideas in 1991-2003. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag, 2006. Some works have attempted to explore the differences between “good” and “bad” nationalism, as if its intuitively defined binary nature and direct influence on Western foreign policy (support for new states in their opposition to Russian domination ) could be a sufficient basis for recognizing the legitimacy of this kind of division.
As rightly noted in his study by A.S. Mukanova, “During the Soviet period, the place and role of nationalism was determined as a force hostile to socialism, opposing the ideas and policies of internationalism. Nationalism was assessed and criticized in accordance with the ideas of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Lenin, I. Stalin. Soviet scientists in within the framework of studying issues of ethnogenesis and interethnic relations, they indirectly touched upon the problems of nation and nationalism.
Formulated in 1913 and subsequently refined, the famous Stalinist (four-signature) definition of a nation long years will become a dogma in Soviet social science and will close the way to many innovations in the field of research on ethno-national issues in the Soviet Union. During the “Khrushchev Thaw”, researchers and social scientists T.Yu. Burmistrova, M.S. Dzhunusov, P.M. Rogachev and M.A. Sverdlin considers the nation in a broader framework; there is a departure from previous definitions. For them, a nation is a historically emerged socio-ethnic community that has qualitatively different characteristics than national communities (tribe and nationality). Although many researchers, for example, M.I. Kulichenko, also defining the nation as a socio-ethnic community, at the same time, put it on a par with pre-national communities" Mukanova A.S. Evolution of views on the phenomena of nation and nationalism in the context of Soviet national policy // Ural Historical Bulletin. - 2009. - No. 4 (25). - P. 65-66..
At this time, the theory of a new historical socio-political and international community (the “Soviet people”) was being actively developed. ON THE. Berkovich, Yu.Yu. Weingold, M.S. Dzhunusov, L.V. Efimov, A.A. Isupov, M.D. Kammari, N.M. Kiselev, L.N. Knyazev, I.S. Kohn, P.N. Fedoseev, A.I. Kholmogorov, N.N. Cheboksarov in his works attempted to define a new supra-ethnic community, which is of particular interest to researchers who understand the nation in civilian terms.
In the 1970-1980s. problems of the theory of the formation and evolution of ethnic groups and nations, national and ethnic identity were reflected in the works of R.G. Ablulatipova, V.A. Avksentyeva, S.A. Arutyunova, S.M. Harutyunyan, E.A. Bagramova, Yu.I. Bromley, L.N. Gumileva, P.G. Evdokimova, M.V. Jordana, V.I. Kozlova, M.V. Kryukova, A.N. Melnikova, L.V. Skvortsova, A.K. Uledova, S.V. Czech and many others. The identification of the ethnic component in modern nations was characteristic of the Soviet theory of ethnicity, in particular the concept of Yu.V. Bromley about the nation as an ethnosocial organism. There are analogies with the theory of E. Smith.
From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, with the beginning of “perestroika” and the collapse of the USSR, studies of national problems began to move away from traditional Soviet methodology. There was access to the conceptual developments of Western scientists, which began to be actively studied and comprehended by Russian researchers. Philosophers, political scientists, and anthropologists have actively participated in discussions about the ethno-national structure of Russia. During this period, the interest of domestic scientists was concentrated primarily on the study of national processes after the collapse of the USSR, problems of national consciousness, ethnic identity, the relationship of nationalism with the processes of formation and development of ethnic groups and nations Mukanova A.S. Soviet national policy and its role in the formation of views on the phenomena of “nation” and “nationalism” // Vestnik MGOU. Series "History and Political Sciences". - 2009. - No. 4. - P. 88..
In Soviet and then Russian science and psychological and political practice, the term “nationalism” was used in a negative sense and contained an assessment of certain social movements that, for some reason, did not qualify for recognition as “national liberation.” It was customary to contrast “bourgeois nationalism” with “proletarian internationalism.” Russian researchers began to consider nationalism not on an ideologically based assessment scale, but as a really existing socio-political phenomenon. This approach allowed Russian researchers to share the point of view of many Western European and American scientists, according to which the nature of nationalism is ambivalent and multivariate. The change in the methodological paradigm made it possible not only to use typologies of nationalism developed by Western researchers in the analysis, but also to offer our own version that more accurately reflects Russian realities. It can be stated that the knowledge and practical research experience accumulated by modern Russian scientists allow them, together with the world scientific community, to continue studying the phenomenon of nationalism. However, it should be noted that the mass consciousness of Russians still perceives the term “nationalism” as evaluative, and most often having a negative meaning. The same position is shared by many representatives of the political elite. This clearly outdated and unsafe dogma is supported by the media. Thus, as noted by L.M. Drobizheva, “there is a growing gap between populist, journalistic, ideologized political views on nationalism and scientific developments of the problems of nationalism. This negatively affects the interaction of peoples” Drobizheva L.M. The possibility of liberal ethnonationalism // The reality of ethnic myths. Analytical series. Issue 3. Moscow Carnegie Center. - M.: Gandalf, 2000. - P.78..
The emerging traditions of studying the phenomenon of nationalism in post-Soviet and, especially, Russian territory bring to the fore its function as political mobilization. There are both objective and subjective reasons for such a campaign. Objective factors include the specifics government structure former USSR, which persists in the modern Russian Federation. It's about about the double principle of the state-political structure - national-territorial and administrative-territorial, which gave (and in the conditions of the Russian Federation continues to give) the process of formation of civil nations ("Soviet people", "Russians", "Tatarstan people", etc.) specific character. The specificity lies in the fact that instead of one “nationalizing state” there is a whole set of such state entities. More precisely: within the common state there were different-status political territorial entities, personifying the sovereignty of ethnic nations. In the modern Russian Federation, the previous configuration, logically complete in form and content, is being transformed into a new one, with its final appearance still unclear. During the fundamental changes in the state structure of the USSR and the Russian Federation, political elites everywhere used nationalism for the political mobilization of ethnic nations. Weak and obscure attempts are being made to form civil nations both on the scale of the entire Federation (“Russians”) and at the level of some subjects (“Tatarstanians”, “Bashkortostanians”). Therefore, the study of national movements, their ideology and political practice in the post-Soviet geopolitical space inevitably turns the mobilization capabilities of nationalism into a subject of research. Among the subjective factors that determined the attention of Russian researchers to the above-mentioned function of nationalism, one can name a tradition of a negative or, at best, suspicious attitude towards this phenomenon, deeply rooted in the mass consciousness, including in the scientific community. Hence, in our opinion, the desire to understand not so much “what is it?”, but rather “what does it look like in Russian conditions?”, “what role does nationalism play in modern Russian society?” Of course, such a research position contributed to focusing attention on the functions of nationalism in general; objective circumstances made additional adjustments. In the course of specific studies and comprehension of their results, Russian scientists made interesting and fruitful theoretical generalizations that complement the ideas about nationalism. The very first studies of the phenomenon, conducted without ideological blinders, and the study of the theoretical developments of Western scientists began to change ideas about nationalism. In 1993 L.M. Drobizheva, speaking at an international conference, noted that after the removal of the Iron Curtain, Russian scientists began to understand nationalism in two ways: firstly, as ethno-isolationism and the priority of one ethnic community over the other, as ethnic discrimination; secondly, as a principle according to which peoples, in an effort to preserve cultural identity, strive to live under “their own political roof”, to have their own statehood and rulers Drobizheva L.M. Intelligentsia and nationalism. Experience of the post-Soviet space // Ethnicity and power in multi-ethnic states. Materials of the international conference 1993. / Rep. ed. V.A. Tishkov. - M.: Nauka, 1994. - P.72.. In other words, nationalism can be different in essence and consequences. This understanding of the nature of nationalism has long been established in world literature. The most common is the binary model: Western - Eastern; civil - ethnic. According to Russian researchers of the concepts of nationalism A.I. Miller and V.V. Koroteeva, this tradition was founded by the American historian Hans Kohn See: Miller A.I. Ernest Gellner’s theory of nationalism and its place in the literature of the issue // Nationalism and the Formation of Nations. Theories - models - concepts. - M., 1994. - P. 13-14; Koroteeva V.V. Theories of nationalism in foreign social sciences. - M., 1999. - P. 26-27. Thus, in his work “The Idea of Nationalism,” published in 1944, he wrote about “Western” nationalism as rational, civil and about “Eastern” as irrational, ethnic. The first type is typical for the advanced countries of Europe and the USA, the second - for Germany, Russia, and other countries of Eastern Europe, a number of Asian countries. The differences are determined by the conditions of formation, in particular, the social base and the relationship between the nation and the state.
Domestic scientists T.I. Bonkalo, V.A. Ilyin and S.V. Bonkalo recently conducted an empirical study devoted to identifying patterns of transformation of patriotism into nationalism depending on the level of psychosocial development of the individual. And based on the results of the study, the authors formulated “a number of well-founded generalizing conclusions:
1. Ethnonational attitudes of the individual, in fact, are one of the phenomenological manifestations of the process and result of psychosocial development at the basic stages of the epigenetic cycle.
3. Young people with clearly expressed nationalist attitudes are characterized by “conservation” - unresolved crises of the early stages of development and, as a consequence, psychosocial confusion, while their peers with neutral-negative ethnonational attitudes are distinguished by a stable positive resolution of these crises. Young people with patriotic attitudes occupy an intermediate position in this regard.
4. Currently, there is a tendency towards growth of nationalist sentiments among young people. This is due both to external influence, in particular, to aggressive nationalist propaganda, and to the fundamental problems of modern, primarily preschool and school education.
5. One of the most important strategic directions for the prevention of nationalism among young people is the real and radical reform of secondary school in the logic of shifting the emphasis from formal education to the full personal development of students." Bonkalo T.I., Ilyin V.A., Bonkalo S.V. Ethnonational attitudes and psychosocial development of personality: experience of empirical research // Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. - 2015. - No. 4. - pp. 13-14..
According to T.I. Bonkalo, V.A. Ilyin and S.V. Bonkalo, the key in terms of the “patriotism-nationalism” dichotomy is the fifth stage. Age periodization, developed by E. Erikson, is based on the consideration life cycle of man as in successively successive eight developmental crises. Each age crisis is, according to E. Erikson, a turning point in the general process of psychosocial development. The source of the crisis is the conflict between the positive, or vital, principle, reflecting the essence of human nature, and the negative, or destructive, principle, manifested in specific forms, characteristic of a certain age. Such conflicts are resolved according to the genetic makeup of the individual, the characteristics of her previous experience and the social situation of her development. psychosocial development (ideology), if only because, according to a number of authors, “the origins of national feeling are connected with the need for a positive social identity” Erikson E. Identity: youth and crisis. - M.: Progress, 1996. - P. 66.. Without delving into methodological details, the above researchers note that within the framework of the theoretical scheme they use, the concept of “social identity” is specific in relation to the generic concept of “identity”. Identity, from the point of view of the psychosocial approach, is a kind of epicenter of the life cycle of each person. It is formalized as a psychological construct in adolescence, and the functionality of the individual in adulthood depends on its qualitative characteristics. independent life Ilyin V.A. Using the theory of psychosocial development to predict the risk of suicidal behavior in adolescence. Materials III All-Russian scientific and practical conference "Social-psychological prevention and psychotherapy of suicidal personality state" / under scientific. ed. E.A. Petrova, T.I. Bonkalo. - M., 2014. - P. 9-32..
National and ethnic issues on modern stage The development of mankind is one of the most acute and painful, and in this regard, the study of the phenomenon of nationalism in the history of political thought acquires particular relevance.
The intensification of the processes of nationalism is most pronounced among peoples who are at earlier stages of socio-political and economic development. Adaptation to global technogenic civilization is often perceived by them as economic and cultural expansion of more developed neighbors, accompanied by the imposition of an alien way of life on them. A similar situation is developing in today's Russia.
Law and modern states at the turn of the millennium, during the lifetime of one generation, the previously existing value system collapsed and a new one began to emerge, which led to a feeling of insecurity among a huge number of people. The previously clearly demarcated life in society has begun to lose its definition, and a person faces the problem of choosing new guidelines. Therefore, the desire to regain a stable social identity and the psychological comfort associated with it increases, which very often manifests itself in the form of nationalism.
Assessing nationalism from a moral and ethical point of view, most researchers recognize its enormous historical role in the formation of many nations and states. It is indicated that only over the last one and a half to two centuries, thanks to nationalism, France was consolidated, Italy and Germany were united, the political independence of Poland, Finland, and Greece was restored, and the independence of many peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This also includes the former Soviet republics. It is believed that it was nationalism that destroyed and erased such great world empires as the Austro-Hungarian, British, Ottoman, and Russian from the map of the Earth. We also note that many achievements in literature, art, culture and a number of humanities were largely due to nationalism.
At the same time, it should be noted that nationalism was a powerful weapon in the hands of the dictatorial regimes of Italy and Germany, Spain and Portugal, and in combination and intertwined with fascism and racism, it harmed the development of many peoples of the world.
Hundreds of books have been devoted to the problem of nationalism, the search for its roots and origins, and the revelation of the nature and essence of this phenomenon; however, it cannot be said that its mystery has been fully solved.
At the end of the 90s of the XX century - beginning of XXI century, nationalism began to clearly manifest itself in the political and social life of Russia. It can be argued that there was an explosion of national intolerance, and nationalism acquired new strength, reflected in nationalist parties. The subject of our research topic is the concept of nationalism, and the object is the prospects for the development of the future of Russia in the conditions of nationalism.
The concept and essence of nationalism
There is no short and comprehensive definition of nationalism, and probably cannot be. Having examined the many existing definitions of this phenomenon, we can point out a number of qualities and characteristics of nationalism, which is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion to the nation, people, ethnic group to which this person belongs to devotion to self-sacrifice in the present, reverence and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory and success in the future. In this nation, every individual is a part of the whole, and the nation cannot and should not leave its people defenseless both inside and outside its habitat, and vice versa, every individual of this nation must always be ready to sacrifice himself for the sake of his people. Nationalism is often confused with patriotism, but there is a serious difference between them. Nationalism represents boundless love and readiness for self-sacrifice for one’s people, ethnic group, and patriotism represents the same love and readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of the homeland and state.
Nationalism is the spiritual self-awareness of the people, which has a Divine basis; instinct of national self-preservation, faith in the strength of one’s people; the predominance of the interests of one’s ethnic group over all others, leading to the nation’s ability to effectively fight hostile foreign elements. Nationalism represents the highest phase of the development of patriotism, in which the main truth is that the nation is primary, the state is secondary.
Now let's move on to the very essence of nationalism. The idea of a nation inevitably gives rise to specific political actions, which in a systematized form constitute nationalism. In the most general concept, nationalism is a political movement aimed at expressing and protecting the interests of a national community either in the international arena or in relations with state power. Moreover, the first of them is the nationalism of the leading, or main state-forming nation, while the second is the nationalism of an ethnic minority.
Objectively, national movements are aimed at using political mechanisms both within the state and in the international arena to increase the level of community of citizens of the same nationality and protect their interests. Nationalism from the point of view political sphere It works most effectively only when relations within a country require cultural and social cohesion of society or individual segments of its population.
Practical experience has shown us that nationalism is not simply used to recognize the existence of a nation, as well as its special interests, but also claims the superiority of nationally oriented needs over all other hopes and plans of people. A high assessment of national priorities is often intertwined with ideas of independence, which in turn almost constantly gives rise to demands for obtaining a certain part of state sovereignty and its political and administrative consolidation. All this may mean granting the nation a certain autonomy within the state, and even the creation of an independent state entity.
In most cases, the goal of nationalism is to increase the efficiency of the state, to carry out reforms in it that can qualitatively increase the level of cultural and social security citizens of one nationality or another. Another fairly common goal of national movements is the acquisition by national groups of “national-cultural autonomy,” which guarantees that citizens of a particular nationality will acquire other opportunities to express their identity, expand the rights to special forms of political representation, and legislative initiatives.
Given the high political importance of national movements in modern states, in many cases nationalism is used as a political cover for completely different social forces to gain power. This form of nationalism often becomes a cover or a tool for penetration into the political market of those forces that are not interested in public disclosure and presenting their true goals to public opinion.
Types of nationalism and reasons for its occurrence
Many researchers believe that nationalism is an ideology and policy that actively uses national feelings and emotions for its own purposes. Let's take a closer look at the classification of Snyder and Hayes.
According to Snyder, there are four types of nationalism:
1. Integrating nationalism (1845-1871). During this period, according to Snyder, nationalism was a unifying force that contributed to the consolidation of feudal-fragmented peoples (Italy, Germany).
2. Dividing nationalism (1871-1890). The successes of nationalism in the unification of Italy and Germany stimulated the struggle for national independence of the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and other empires, which ultimately led to their collapse.
3. Aggressive nationalism (1900-1945). The first half of the 20th century witnessed an acute conflict of opposing national interests, which resulted in two world wars. During this period, nationalism becomes identical to imperialism.
4. Modern nationalism (1945 - present). The new nationalism declared itself mainly through anti-colonial revolutions. This period was marked by the spread of nationalism on a global scale1.
Hayes in his classification identifies the following types of nationalism: Jacobin, traditional, liberal, integral and economic.
These two classifications do not explain anything and only serve as confirmation that nationalism is a policy and ideology that uses national feelings to achieve its goals.
Let's consider the most expanded classification of E.A. Pozdnyakova:
1. Ethnic nationalism is the nationalism of an oppressed or enslaved people fighting for their national liberation, it is the nationalism of a people striving to gain their own statehood. It has its own politics and ideology.
2. Power-state nationalism is the nationalism of state-formed peoples (nations) striving to realize their national-state interests in the face of similar nations.
3. Everyday nationalism is a manifestation of nationalistic feelings at the level of the individual and small social groups. It is usually expressed in xenophobia, in a hostile attitude towards foreigners and representatives of other ethnic groups.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that nationalism is nothing more than a combination of ideology and politics in their inextricable unity. If we remove at least one element, then we get a feeling of attachment to our people, as well as devotion to our homeland, that is, ethical categories that in themselves do not have real power. But if we add to them the appropriate ideology and politics, then we get nationalism, capable of creating and destroying states, uniting and dividing people, and, under certain conditions, inciting enmity, conflicts and hatred.
Nationalism has always been perceived ambiguously. In Marxist-Leninist historiography and political science, the nationalism of oppressed nations and the nationalism of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries were singled out as clearly positive. At the same time, bourgeois nationalism, despite its often creative role, was considered a negative phenomenon. As for proletarian, socialist or communist nationalism, it could not exist at all. Only internationalism could coexist with these epithets.
And modern nationalism is perceived in two ways in Russian society. Many condemn it, considering it a destructive ideology, while others actively support it, often in an aggressive form (for example, skinheads).
Nationalist problems at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries in Russia acquired unprecedented severity and relevance. What are the reasons for the spread of nationalist ideology at the end of the 20th century in a country that fought against nationalism, namely, its most extreme and harsh manifestation - fascism. First of all, it is worth noting that Russia is a multinational country, more than one hundred and thirty peoples and nationalities live in it, and national problems have always existed here. But in the 90s of the last century, national and racial conflicts on the territory of Russia, as well as confrontation between individual nationalities, reached a record high. The reasons for this phenomenon are instability in the country and low standard of living, uneven development of regions and increased migration processes, increased conflicts between cultures and ethnic groups, the war in Chechnya, separatism and terrorism.
Nationalism in the context of globalization
In the context of globalization, which occurs against the backdrop of a deep crisis of modern civilization, the problems of nationalism have become most relevant. This phenomenon has caused contradictory consequences. On the one hand, the living conditions of ethnic and national communities are drawing closer together due to integration processes. On the other hand, globalization leads to the loss of their identity by these communities, stimulating nationalism as a response. Thus, globalization and nationalism are two interdependent, often inseparable phenomena of our time. In Russia, the relevance of the problem of nationalism is not only associated with globalization, but also due to many prerequisites laid down during the period of “socialist national construction.” Due to the collapse of the USSR, the transition Russian society from the Soviet system to the liberal-democratic one, many of the “time bombs” laid by the founders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have exploded or are ready to explode.
The problem of nationalism
History provides many examples of nationalism. The most striking and close historical example is National Socialism or German Nazism, which was an extreme and cruel manifestation of nationalism. An economy destroyed to the ground, general lack of faith and apathy, mass unemployment - such was Germany, which was defeated in the First World War. Hitler came to power and instilled in the Germans the idea of their superiority over all other peoples. This idea has found many supporters, both in Germany and abroad. National Socialism became the dominant ideology of the Third Reich.
What was the essence of German Nazism? Its ideologists proclaimed the German nation to be the highest value, for the sake of which one could do anything. Jews and Gypsies turned out to be people outside the law and subject to immediate destruction; it was decided to leave the Slavs alive, but only as cheap labor. Hitler was also greatly irritated by blacks and mulattoes.
Nationalism destroyed Germany.
The logical consequence of the National Socialist ideology was an attempt to conquer “living space,” which turned into a grueling war in the East. However, Hitler miscalculated: the combined forces of the Allies defeated the troops of the Third Reich and their allies in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. This is how the Germans were cured of nationalism.
Today we are witnessing a revival of Nazism—neo-Nazism. And not only in defeated Germany or in countries allied with it. This phenomenon also affected the peoples of the former Soviet Union (especially Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians), who fully experienced the horror of the Nazi invasion. And now not only individual politicians, but also entire organizations proclaim ideas of national exclusivity, skillfully confusing the average citizen, passing off nationalism as patriotism.
In our opinion, today the danger of the emergence of Nazism in our country is small, but the fact that this inhuman political doctrine still exists, and the number of its supporters does not decrease, leads to sad reflections about our future. Namely, will humanity be able to learn the lessons of past events and prevent a repeat of the collapse?
Modern nationalism in Russia
Currently, in Russia there is a noticeable increase in nationalist sentiments, evidence of which is not only the activities of Russian nationalist groups and organizations, but also millions of votes cast for the LDPR, a significant part of which belongs to nationalist-minded voters, as well as the intensification of separatist sentiments in the national republics of the Russian Federation. What is the socio-psychological basis of various manifestations of nationalism?
It is obvious that one of its carriers (perhaps the most widespread) is the lumpen part of society. Marx also saw in the lumpen proletariat - “this scum of all classes” - a layer of people who do not have a firm social position and are therefore unstable and corrupt. Nationalism attracts the lumpen because it gives him a sense of superiority over representatives of all other nations as a result of his mere belonging to a given national community. You don’t need any work, no effort, no talents or merits to consider yourself superior to a Tatar, Armenian, Uzbek or Jew just because I’m Russian. Or consider myself superior to a Russian because I am a Chechen (or a Jew, an Armenian, a Georgian, etc.). Nationalism divides nations.
As one of the factors influencing the processes taking place in society, in the sphere of national relations there is a certain tradition of a nationalistic character, suppressed in the past, but preserved and still feeding and supporting nationalist sentiments in the Russian environment. Indeed, in the USSR, not only the actively cultivated factor of “friendship of peoples” was at work, but also the conditions of hidden tension in interethnic relations and negative perception of people of other nationalities persisted. On the surface of public life, everything seemed to be in harmony with the official ideology of internationalism, but after its shackles were loosened, national problems began to appear already during the period of perestroika.
The collapse of the USSR led to the aggravation and emergence of new problems and contradictions in almost all of its former republics and largely contributed to the growth of nationalism in all parts former Union. Having acquired sovereignty, the new states needed ideological justification for their legitimacy, and the ideology of nationalism became the most convenient for this.
As for Russia, it has become like Germany during the Treaty of Versailles. Previously, all over the world Soviet Union Russia and the Russians were identified first of all, but now from a powerful superpower, which was the USSR, it turned into an economically uncompetitive state dependent on the West. In terms of a number of economic, demographic, and environmental indicators, Russia has moved backward. The death rate has exceeded the birth rate. The existence of Russian science, the only means by which the country can overcome its technological lagging behind the West in the long term, is threatened.
Russia has become a country without a past and a future, all of it recent history was subjected to revision and revision, and the life and work of entire generations of Soviet people was crossed out and deprived of meaning. With the collapse of the USSR, 25 million Russians lost their homeland, finding themselves in states adjacent to Russia, but now foreign ones. In some former republics of the USSR they began to be oppressed and expelled from the country, they began to be discriminated against based on their nationality. The country and people suffered terrible national humiliation. Isn't this the basis for nationalism?! One can only be surprised that his rise was not as powerful as one might have expected.
Nationalism as a political threat
The growth of nationalism poses a huge political threat to Russia, so it is necessary to put barriers in place.
Nationalism became the banner of reactionary political forces in Russia during the wars and revolutions of the early 20th century. The communists came to power under the banner of internationalism and international solidarity of workers and, indeed, they put these slogans into practice. The solution to internal national problems was associated with the building of socialism, with the progress of the economy and culture, i.e. was considered as part of the general process of social development. The class approach dominated.
But already before the war, under the banner of internationalism and under the pretext of fighting local nationalism, the destruction of national personnel began. A stream of repression swept through everyone national republics and the Russian people suffered from this no less than others. During the Patriotic War, the place of internationalism was taken by patriotism and statehood. During this period, entire nations were subjected to repression. And a complete departure from the principle of internationalism was marked by the struggle against cosmopolitanism that began in 1948, when the former internationalists overnight became “rootless cosmopolitans.” At the same time, it is hardly possible to declare a transition of the party leadership to nationalism. The difference between patriotism and nationalism was discussed above, and the new policy became an expression of patriotism as the party ideology of statehood.
During the years of stagnation in the field of national relations and in the national question as a whole, as in many other things, there was doublethink, a split between the real life process and its ideological and propaganda clothing. Much was hidden from public opinion, from society’s assessment—moods, real problems, tension, conflict situations. Objective scientific study of the sphere of national relations was prohibited and publicity in this area was not allowed. Officially, the national question was considered resolved and not subject to discussion. All this had a corrupting effect on public consciousness.
Forces, in the early 90s. of the last century, who came to power in Russia on a democratic wave, set as their goal, at all costs, to put an end to the “empire” and free themselves from the power of the “center”, i.e. union leadership. At the same time, they rejected everything positive that was achieved in the relations between nations, in the rapprochement of peoples during the years of Soviet power, and completely ignored the patriotic feelings of the majority of the Soviet people, who voted in a referendum on March 17, 1991 to preserve the Union.
The paradox of history is that Russia, which for many centuries gathered lands around itself and created a powerful state, now, in the person of its supreme power, acted as the main initiator of the collapse of this state, declaring its sovereignty and the priority of its laws over the allied ones. For the Russians, this act was a violation of a long-standing historical tradition. And this very violation and the events that followed it contributed to the growth and strengthening of nationalism in the country. At the same time, by collapsing the Union, Russian “democrats” played into the hands of local separatists, for whom nationalism was the banner of their struggle for power.
A wave of anti-Russian nationalism arose in Ukraine, especially in its western regions. The President of Russia described this situation as follows: “What happened? What happened is that people are tired of poverty, of theft, of the rudeness of the authorities, of their irrepressible greed, of corruption, of the oligarchs who have climbed into power. People are tired of all this. And when society and the country slide into such a state, people begin to look for ways out of this situation and, unfortunately, partially turn to those who, speculating on current difficulties, offer some simple solutions. Among them are nationalists. What, we didn’t have this, perhaps, in the 90s? There wasn’t this “parade of sovereignties”, there wasn’t nationalism that flared up in bright colors then? Yes, it all happened, we went through it all! And this actually happens everywhere. This is what happened in Ukraine. These nationalist elements took advantage of this and brought everything to the state we are seeing now. Therefore, this is not our failure, it is a failure within Ukraine itself.” Nationalism began to spread in the Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics. Local nationalism and separatism also exist in Russia itself.
To overcome global problems and dangers require the combined efforts of all the peoples of the Earth, all of humanity. And these dangers include not only the threat of depletion of non-renewable natural resources, but also much more. The prospect of isolation and national isolation of Russia, which nationalists offer it, will not protect Russia from these dangers, but rather will strengthen them. The current government is aware of this threat and is countering it. “As for radical nationalism, we have always fought against it and will continue to fight,” noted V.V. Putin. “I have repeatedly said that nationalism is a very harmful and destructive phenomenon for the integrity of the Russian state, because it initially developed as a multinational and multi-religious country.”
IN modern world processes of internationalization of social life are underway, caused by the dynamics of the world market, technological progress, the development of science and education, the informatization of society, and the growing mobility of the population. These processes are inevitable and it is pointless to resist them. But they give rise to contradictions, since they collide with traditional national cultures, and are themselves contradictory, since they not only smooth out national differences, but also open up new opportunities for national development.
Modern nationalism tries to slow down the processes of integration and internationalization taking place in society. But the path of nationalism is a dead end, its guidelines do not allow us to find ways to resolve the contradictions that arise here, or to develop principles for the coexistence of different cultures.
Humanity has already grown to understand that the diversity of nations, cultures, languages is its wealth, its heritage, which there is no need to give up. And this means that the essence of the national question is in its modern form can be formulated in one phrase: how everyone can learn to live together and in peace.
Ways to overcome the problems of nationalism
National contradictions and conflicts will continue to arise, since the relationship and interaction of nations has not only purely ethnic, but also economic, political, cultural and other components. And therefore, national policy and the development of mechanisms for resolving emerging contradictions are of paramount importance to ensure normal interethnic relations.
World experience shows that people of different nationalities can quite get along with each other if one nation does not put itself above others, if the language and culture of each nation can develop freely and no obstacles are put in their way, if people of different nationalities, based on the fact that the limit of my freedom is the freedom of another, they respect each other’s customs and traditions. Another very important point is how the peoples themselves relate to each other, what prevails more in their feelings - a calm and kind attitude towards this or that nation, or enmity, hostility and even hatred. Negative attitudes can flare up quickly but are resolved slowly. Therefore, a consistent policy focused on the peaceful resolution of contradictions and the prevention of national clashes and bloody showdowns is so important. These include democracy, political stability, the development of integration processes in the CIS, the right of a nation to self-determination up to the formation of statehood, the autonomy of nations in matters of culture and language and recognition of national equality. Great importance has intolerance and prohibition of mutual hostility between nations, negative perception of other customs, traditions, characteristics, etc.
Whatever contradictions arise in the relations between nations, they must take into account each other’s interests. Integrative processes dominate the world, and the era of national wars is becoming a thing of the past. Learning how to continue to live peacefully and together is a big job that affects all aspects of public life: economics, politics, the social sphere, and culture. It is necessary to think through how to make the idea of the national revival of Russia a joint concern of all its peoples, where everyone, in accordance with their capabilities, contributes to the common cause, where the role of the Russian people and their responsibility is decisive, and where the movement forward will take place on the basis of the principles of democracy and patriotism , justice, humanism and mutual respect. Then nationalism will not come to Russia.
The emergence of ethnic conflicts and clashes has become a frequent occurrence in Russia. Nationalism arises at a low standard of living, with strong differentiation of society, and, penetrating into various layers of society, contributes to the emergence of aggressively minded youth and the emergence of political parties with a nationalist orientation.
At present, the immediate threat to democratic freedoms posed by a radical nationalist movement appears to be negligible. At the same time, due to a number of economic and social reasons, there is a possibility of a gradual shift of the current regime towards more radical forms of nationalist ideology. To solve problems associated with ethnic conflicts and xenophobic clashes, the state must choose and consistently implement a balanced policy.
Nationalism...It often leads to cruelty, violence, conflicts and even wars. Unfortunately, in the modern world the problem of nationalism has remained popular for many decades. That is why L. Zhukhovitsky raises this problem in your text.
Revealing the problem of nationalism, the author draws the attention of readers to the attitude of many Russians towards people of other nationalities: “Because - “all sorts of people have come here in large numbers!” Wherever you look, they are everywhere.” However, the writer believes that “this is not a problem for us, but a great success.” L. Zhukhovitsky also emphasizes the role of “those who came in large numbers” in the development of our country, citing the example of Aram Khachaturian, Svyatoslav Richter, Vakhtang Chabukiani and others. Thus, the author says that the reason for the emergence of nationalism is the people themselves and their worldview.
Zhukhovitsky has a negative attitude towards the phenomenon of nationalism and believes that “the only real way out of the created mess is to recognize that we are all equal Russians.”
Indeed, we must understand that our country is multinational. Many peoples, completely different from each other, inhabit Russia. There are many things that make us different, but we are all citizens of one big country and we should be proud of that.
Many writers have thought about the problem of nationalism. D.S. Likhachev in his work “Letters about the Good and the Beautiful” also considers this problem. The author emphasizes the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
According to D.S. Likhachev, the first is love for the Motherland, the second is hatred of other peoples. So, the writer calls on us to be patriots, not nationalists.
Turning to the textbook L.N. Bogolyubov "Social studies. Grade 11. Profile level", we can also read about the problem of nationalism. The author is convinced that any rivalry between ethnic groups can be considered an ethnic conflict. And this, in turn, is a consequence of the phenomenon of nationalism itself. That is, from this textbook we can learn that nationalism exists not because of the diversity of ethnic groups, but because of the diversity of the political and social conditions in which they develop.
Thus, L. Zhukhovitsky’s text awakened in my soul a desire to better understand the problem of nationalism.
Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) - start preparing
Updated: 2018-03-21
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
Korobeynikova Tatyana Yurievna. Nationalism as a problem of management and social regulation: dissertation... Candidate of Sociological Sciences: 22.00.08.- Pyatigorsk, 2007.- 142 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 07-22/475
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. Nationalism in the context of sociological analysis 17
1.1. The nature of nationalism in its various interpretations 17
1.2. Risks of nationalism and modern society 36
1.3. Social foundations of nationalistic behavior 57
CHAPTER 2. Conflict-generating potential of nationalism and ways to overcome it by means of management and social regulation 78
2.1. Nationalistic attitudes: character, features of overcoming 78
2.2. Nationalism and conflict: problems of governance and regulation 100
Conclusion 117
Bibliography 122
Appendix 135
Introduction to the work
Relevance of the research topic. The changing modern world is becoming a source of profound transformations in the sphere of national relations. Today, the action of two opposite, but objectively interrelated trends is revealed here. On the one hand, intensifying integration processes and the growing desire to overcome the multiethnicity and multiculturalism of modern societies by unifying them inevitably require some reduction in the importance of the national over the universal to ensure social success. This is a characteristic feature of globalization. On the other hand, societies, despite its modernizing influence, are increasingly etiized - the presence ethnic factor finds itself everywhere, moreover, in a number of areas of social life it has a dominant influence. In this sense, the modern world can be called a century not only of globalization, but also of nationalism, acting as a specific reaction to the globalization transformation of the world.
Nationalism, as well as the most important ethnic identifiers (language, system of traditions and values, beliefs), has been and remains an effective mechanism of ethnosocial strategy and practice. The strength of the influence of nationalism as an instrument of social action largely depends on the degree of development of both the national and the social. The weakness and underdevelopment of social structures (state, political, legal, etc.) leads to an increased role of nationalism and its gradual filling of social space. And at the same time, insecurity and infringement of the national - even with the development of the social - can lead to the same consequences. And then nationalism ceases to be a way of ethnocommunication, turning into a means of pressure and suppression, sharply reducing the possibilities of social design and management of social processes.
The inclusion of the ethnic in the fabric of the social, its ubiquitous presence, gives the problem of the factor of nationalism in the social process a non-
passing relevance - society, experiencing manifestations of nationalism to varying degrees, objectively cannot completely exclude its influence, especially in conditions of increasing mixing of the population caused by diverse modernization processes. They result not only in universalization, but also in “nationalization.” At the same time, the varieties of nationalism are multiplying, its already known forms are being transformed, acquiring new specific historical outlines. The very content of nationalism and its constructive functions (protective, protective, consolidating, mobilizing) are changing.
Nationalism, like ethnicity itself, cannot be squeezed into the rigid framework of certain (once and for all defined) schemes and the problems it causes cannot be solved using the same means. The diversity and variability of nationalism require constant adjustment of management strategy and tactics. This is especially true for so-called transitional societies, characterized by underdevelopment and weakness of political, economic, and ideological institutions. In the case when the influence of the state in the space of ethnosocial relations is minimized, it is easily replenished non-state actors, expanding their influence due to the growth of nationalism, which, using specific mechanisms of influence and regulation, can not only complicate, but also prolong the time that society remains in a transitional state and delay the moment of its stabilization.
Nationalism belongs to the category of those phenomena that are distinguished by a high degree of complexity and ambivalence. It paradoxically combines quite understandable ethnocentrism and hyperethnocentrism (so close, but not identical, especially in their consequences), ethnic mobilization as a means of intranational consolidation and a mechanism of interethnic fencing, ethnic harmony and conflict, modernity and archaism, philias and phobias. All these and many other properties of nationalism allow elites not only to put forward and defend national projects and consolidate national forces around them, but can also cause
serious harm to the system of ethnosocial ties and relationships. Nationalism cannot be removed from the system of interaction of ethnic groups with each other and with the state. And in this sense he always remains actual problem social regulation.
The degree of scientific development of the problem. Domestic and Western scientific thought has done quite a lot in understanding the phenomenon of nation and nationalism. It can be said with complete confidence that among the most famous researchers of social processes there are few who have ignored the problem of ethnicity and, within its framework, nationalism.
Among Western researchers, the most interesting concepts are contained in the works of such scientists as B. Anderson, P. Brass, J. Breuilly, C. Verderi, E. Gellner, D. Nesbit, W. Sumner, E. Smith, E. Hobsbawm , M. Hrocha. With a certain difference in views on the essence and nature of manifestations of nationalism, all Western concepts fit into the framework of either functionalism or constructivism and are distinguished by some inconsistency and lack of strict systematicity. This, of course, does not detract from the significance of their contribution, especially to the development of the methodological foundations of the theory of nation and nationalism. It is impossible not to emphasize the significant educational role of Western research in this area: they made it possible to get acquainted with the world of complex national processes through the prism of diverse - ambiguous and devoid of ideological overtones - views. They have an undoubted merit in developing not only the theory of nation and nationalism, but also in studying their connection with national culture, national psychology, national character, in the study of national identity - both collective and individual. Many Western scientists have worked very fruitfully and are working on the typology of nationalism; they took the lead in developing the concept of civic nationalism, nationalism as ethnocentrism. Perhaps not everyone shares certain scientific attitudes of Western researchers, but hardly anyone will deny the fact that they succeed with their non-standard
6 approaches to maintain constant interest in the problem of nationalism in its modern sound, while leaving room for reflection.
Domestic scientific thought, nurtured in a multi-ethnic world that has constantly undergone transformations, including national ones, and today is experiencing a national boom, is seriously different from the Western one. And first of all, by its fundamental nature both in posing problems and in solving them. It is noteworthy that a large number of researchers always work in the field of national relations, among whom R. Abdulatipova, M. Guboglo, L. Drobizheva, A. Zdravomyslova, S. Lurie, V. Malakhov, V. Koroteeva, M. should be especially highlighted. Mnatsakanyan, V. Mukomel, M. Savva, 3. Sikevich, Y. Solozobova, E. Paina, E. Tutinas, V. Tishkova, Zh. Toshchenko, A. Yazkova. As you can see, we allowed ourselves to put both already well-known scientists and beginners on the same level; those who belong to various directions and sometimes holds opposing points of view on the nature of the nation and nationalism - and this is to emphasize the richness and diversity of domestic views and the breadth of coverage of the problems being studied.
So, if V. Tishkov and A. Zdravomyslov develop the problem of nationalism within the framework of instrumentalism, and, for example, L. Drobizheva and V. Koroteeva gravitate towards constructivism, then M. Mnatsakanyan takes a very different position and explores nationalism through the prism of integralism , which allows, on the one hand, to see in nationalism both one of the internal properties of the nation and its specific quality. The works of these researchers have already become a kind of classic, laying a solid foundation for the advancement of scientific thought in the field of ethnicity.
A new galaxy of Russian researchers gives the classics a different content, in tune with modern realities. In this sense, the views on the nature of nationalism by Z. Sikevich and Zh. Toshchenko are interesting. For the first, it is an ethnic risk factor, for the second, it is a manifestation of ethnocratism. The emergence of these theories has a real basis - the complication of the ethnic picture of the entire post-Soviet space, the strengthening of ethnocratic tendencies and
conflict potential. It is social practice current state national relations and prompted researchers to consider nationalism from such a theoretical perspective.
The search for a solution to this and other social problems that emerged and sharply aggravated in the post-reform period stimulated interest in a relatively new scientific discipline - the sociology of management, which includes in its subject wide circle issues of public life, which cannot but include the problem of nationalism. A.K. wrote about the need to use precise measurements, formulas, drawings, control gauges, and social norms to study social phenomena. Gastev, who laid the foundations of Russian sociometry as a method of quantitative analysis of facts of social interaction and their schematic reflection. And in this sense, the works of A. Antsupov, A. Bolshakov, A. Zaitsev, A. Kibanov, S. Kravchenko, F. Krama, V. Lebedev, W. Mastenbroek, P. Samygin, A. Shipilov are interesting.
Object of study is a technology of management and social regulation in the field of ethnosocial relations.
Subject of study is the influence of nationalism as a factor in managing the social process in a multi-ethnic region.
Purpose of the study- study of the sources and driving forces of nationalism, its role in the system of ethnosocial relations through the prism of social regulation and management technology.
To achieve this goal, the dissertation research set a number of research tasks:
explore the nature of nationalism as social phenomenon by analyzing its various interpretations;
show the risks of nationalism in changing social systems and their impact on modern society;
analyze the sociocultural determinants of nationalist identity;
explore the nature of nationalist attitudes and the possibility of overcoming them by means and methods of managerial influence on the social process;
consider the conflict potential of nationalism;
determine the most productive mechanisms for relieving tension in the sphere of social relations and ways to resolve the conflict associated with nationalist manifestations.
Hypothesis. With the establishment of the philosophy and practice of nationalism, a specific, unique society is created, the characteristic features of which are the limitation of physical and spiritual space, the narrowing of the space of contact and interethnic interaction, which greatly complicates the processes of social regulation.
Theoretical and methodological foundations of the dissertation research. The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the synthesis of systemic and multifactorial approaches, the combination of programmatic and methodological settings of interactionism and structural functionalism, which involve the use of traditional general methodological principles of objectivity, consistency, determinism, specificity and comprehensiveness.
Among the methodological paradigms that have become the basis for the analysis of empirical material, we should highlight structural-functional analysis and methods of management sociology. The middle-level theory is the concept of sociocultural dynamics and the synthesis of the sociology of management with the sociology of national relations. The interdisciplinary nature of the theoretical framework did not affect the methods of collecting information when the sociological survey included interviewing experts and respondents, operationalizing the concept, formulating a hypothesis, analyzing quantitative data, testing the hypothesis and qualitative generalizations. To analyze the problem, the results of sociological research published in periodicals and scientific literature were widely used.
In addition to surveys conducted on the basis of a representative sample, the dissertation used such proven methods as participant observation, statistical analysis, informal interviews, and historical parallels.
Empirical basis of the dissertation. The empirical basis of the study consisted of primary and secondary sociological material. Primary sociological material was obtained during the studies carried out in 2002-2005. graduate students of the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Pyatigorsk State Technological University under the guidance of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Professor V.A. Treasurer of sociological surveys. The dissertation author was a member of an organizational research group that conducted surveys as part of the sociological study “Regional and organizational management in the conditions of a transforming Russia,” the results of which were presented for scientific discussion. A total of 972 people were interviewed; the distribution by gender and age generally coincides with statistical data for the Stavropol Territory.
Secondary sociological material consisted of published results of surveys conducted by L. Drobizheva, E. Kobakhidze, A. Logacheva, V. Petrov, E. Pismennaya, S. Ryazantsev, 10. Solozobov, D. Tukmakov, E. Tutinas, A. Yazkova , as well as sociological studies conducted at different times by different scientific teams:
All-Russian survey of urban and rural populations conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation in 100 populated areas 44 regions, territories and republics of all economic and geographical zones;
sociological research conducted by VTsIOM;
sociological research conducted in 2002 by the Institute of Socio-Economic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences within the framework of the scientific project “Problems of security of Russian society and Russian statehood in the assessments and views of the population of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania”;
Sociological research conducted in Bashkortostan and Ta
Tarstan in 1989-1996
Scientific novelty of the research, determined by its purpose and objectives, is as follows:
determined that the specificity of nationalism in modern conditions determined by the processes of social transformation and globalization;
it is shown that the nature of the impact of nationalism on modern society increases the danger of social destruction;
objective and subjective factors contributing to the formation of nationalistic behavior have been studied, their relationship has been shown;
based on extensive primary and secondary empirical material, the diversity of nationalist attitudes is presented and programs for overcoming them are identified;
the relationship between nationalism and other sources of social conflicts has been identified;
shows the difficulty of resolving conflicts caused by nationalism.
Based on this, the following are submitted for defense: main provisions:
Nationalism in modern conditions is both an effective mechanism of ethnic mobilization, and a unique principle of ethnosocial life, and an instrument for its regulation, and a specific method of social communication. Moreover, in all these qualities, nationalism manifests itself both destructively and constructively. This nature of modern nationalism, as well as the multiplicity of its manifestations, fed by and from different sources, makes it extremely complex in terms of the possibilities of social management.
Nationalism is a reflection of a complex conglomerate of objective and contradictory relations between different segments of society, sectors of the economy, and segments of the population. In modern conditions, it is based on deep social polarization and differentiation, economic underdevelopment.
11 mic structures, immaturity of market relations. And at the same time, nationalism can become an ethnic risk factor not only in conditions of economic and social tension, but also due to the very specifics of national development, the degree of its success, the realization of national expectations or their infringement. It is the latter that enhances the aggression of nationalist attitudes and complicates the processes of social regulation.
3. The power of nationalism, its ability to control individuals
ladies and groups is that he appeals to national feelings
and, most importantly, offers simple, understandable, easy-to-understand
schemes of social communication, within the framework of which all the various
raziness of human relationships, and equally simple ways management
them. Although in reality the entire sphere of nationality is very complex, especially with
from a regulatory point of view, and even more so with simplified schemes.
4. Nationalism is one of the most serious modern risks. At
It is common to talk about its negative content, but it also has a conditionally positive
creative characteristics that allow us to identify real contradictions
in national politics and social life, which is so necessary for a hundred
pre-conflict dii, to ensure the rights and freedoms of individuals and ethnic
social groups, the formation and development of fundamentally new social institutions
Tuts capable of solving ethnosocial problems adequately to the situation. How
This is not paradoxical, but nationalism allows us to diagnose the condition
society and determine its social diseases, and therefore ways to treat them
nia.
5. The development of society under the influence of nationalism turns into complex
uncontrolled process. In a world limited by nationalism, regulatory
the functions of the state are sharply reduced, but the role of local tradition increases,
authority, religion (this is where the so-called absence effect manifests itself)
warring state). Nationalism forms a narrowed social pro-
a wandering in which suspicion, phobias, and prejudices dominate, and this makes it less dialogical and tolerant.
6. Nationalism and conflict, being in each other’s space, make society and social interactions less manageable and difficult to regulate. Most of the disputes that give rise to both nationalism and conflict lie in the plane of problems of power, property and are associated with violations of rights and legal statuses. The relationship between nationalism and conflict has different contents and different vectors of development and experiences different states. These transformations also lead to changes in the behavioral attitudes of individuals, groups and their motivations. Invading the area of conflict, nationalism often gives it a complex character and hides the true causes of the increasingly complex conflict behind the mechanical set of causes of a mono-conflict.
Theoretical and practical significance of the work. The main provisions and materials of the dissertation can be used to conduct further research in the field of sociology of management of national processes, to study a wide range of ethnosocial problems in ethnopolitics, ethnoconflictology, ethnosociology.
The results of this dissertation research also have practical significance: they can be reflected in educational programs in social psychology, sociology of national relations, social philosophy, cultural studies, political science, and also become the basis for the development of special courses, in particular, in ethno-conflict studies.
Approbation of the dissertation. The main provisions of the dissertation are presented in five publications, with a total volume of 6.05 pp. Some results were reported by the author and discussed at scientific and practical conferences and meetings of the methodological seminar on sociology of the Pyatigorsk State Technological University. The dissertation was also discussed at meetings of the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities at PSTU.
Work structure. The subject, goals and objectives of the research determined the structure of the dissertation. It consists of an introduction, two chapters containing five paragraphs, a conclusion and notes. At the end of the work there is a bibliography and appendices.
The nature of nationalism in its various interpretations
The modern age is the age of nationalism. And this is typical not only, as is commonly believed, of multi-ethnic communities, but also of mono-ethnic ones, not only backward and developing, but quite successful and economically prosperous. There is, of course, an explanation for this. It is connected, on the one hand, with the actualization and activation of ethnicity, with the growth of national self-awareness and national demands, with an unprecedented surge of interest in national history, tradition, culture, and on the other hand, with the action of two objective interdependent trends (existing, as it were, in parallel) of the process globalization - integration and fragmentation. Such, let’s say, “prosperous” demand for nationalism in different societies and historical conditions allows us to talk about it not just as some form of national costs, but as a complex and contradictory, multifaceted and polysemantic phenomenon.
At the IV Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism (1994), it was noted: “We live in an increasingly interdependent world. Yet paradoxically, ethnic nationalism has resurfaced with renewed vigor in many parts of the world. Today we are witnessing the fragmentation of empires and states and increasing attempts at secession... on an ethnic basis."1
To assert that such an understanding of nationalism has only come today would be wrong: even before, nationalism was presented by many as an ambivalent unity of positive and negative, consolidating and disintegrating, bringing together and alienating. But this point of view ran somewhat counter to the officially accepted one, where nationalism was an object of criticism and, mainly, a shortcoming that had to be fought. This did not extend, perhaps, to the ethnocultural sphere, where nationalism was an integral part of preserving the diversity and uniqueness of national cultures. The “activity” of nationalism seemed to be limited to this sphere. As for the manifestations of nationalism in politics, ideology, and practice, they were perceived as extremely undesirable as a threat to the national existence, especially of a multinational state.
Although not everything is so simple. Both the constructive and destructive potential of nationalism are ambiguous. Let us try to schematically present the various potentialities and hypostases of nationalism. It is a form of expression of ethnic identity, a direct participant in the processes of ethno-identification and ethno-differentiation, and therefore is a kind of marker of ethnicity and a tool for regulating intra- and interethnic relations. No matter how much everyone wants, a person is always, to one degree or another, a nationalist. And the faces of nationalism depend precisely on the extent and within what boundaries it manifests itself. And this is directly dependent on the presence of a sense of “us” and “alien” and on how deep the “us-them” opposition is, fundamental to ethnicity.
Only through the relationship between “us” and “them” do national identifications acquire meaning: their main mechanism is the correlation of personal interests, values and behavior patterns with the interests of various communities, which can be either “ours” or “strangers”. Plurality social roles, in which the same person acts, predetermines the hierarchical nature of the self-identification system. And here, of fundamental importance is the question of the sequence in which people relate themselves to various communities, which forces them to choose this particular system of self-identification rather than another. “For an ordinary person,” wrote E. Gellner, “the boundaries of his culture are, if not the boundaries of the world, then, in any case, the boundaries within which he can get a job and public recognition, maintain dignity, citizenship, and the opportunity to participate in the life of society . Remaining within these boundaries, he knows the rules of the game and understands what is happening around him; going beyond these limits, he begins to make mistakes, becomes clumsy, not entirely adequate, and risks becoming a laughing stock... The deepest layers of his identity are determined not by his bank account, not by his position in the family or society, but by the written culture acquired during the educational process. His nationalism is not some kind of atavism, but, on the contrary, serves as an expression of well-defined and genuine (although most often unconscious) interests.”
Nationalism is a tool for mobilizing ethnicity, which, being thus mobilized (and politicized), is capable of not only consolidating national forces, but also multiplying nationalism in a variety of its shades. It is also a source of conflict. It contains ethnocentrism, hyper-identity, patriotism, ethnophilia, and ethnophobia. The complexity of the phenomenon of nationalism, especially from the point of view of managing national processes, lies in the fact that all the above-mentioned qualities of nationalism are present in it, as it were, simultaneously, but with varying degrees of manifestation. In it, one thing or another takes precedence, and the connection between the spatio-temporal characteristics of the development of society is more obvious than anywhere else. It can be both a consequence and a cause of many problems born today.
All this necessarily requires a deeper scientific understanding of the phenomenon of nationalism, although philosophical and sociological thought - both domestic and Western - has advanced quite far in this direction. The relevance of the problem of nationalism for our time is emphasized by the fact that among the most prominent researchers of ethnosocial processes there are many who in one way or another touch on the problem of ethnicity, and within its framework, nationalism. Despite all the similarities between Western interpretations of nationalism - constructivist and functionalist - they differ in the tools used in its interpretation. In our opinion, it would be correct to start a conversation about the essence of nationalism with the views of the most famous of them, E. Gellner. Being the author of the constructivist theory of nationalism, he nevertheless does not make much difference between this concept and the concept of functionalism; on the contrary, he introduces elements of the second into the first. E. Gellner paid special attention not so much to defining the nature of nationalism, but to identifying the conditions and specifics of its evolution in modern life. The scientist directly connects the development of nationalism with the processes of formation of national states, which, as is known, historically are quite late formations. And he writes that “the new world, in which nationalism (that is, the combination of the state with the “national” culture, author’s note) has become the generally accepted norm, is fundamentally different from the old one, where this was a rare and atypical phenomenon.”
As we see, he sees the main reason for the development of nationalism in the modern world in the transformation of the national component into the main attribute of the state, now called the nation-state. In addition, he traces the connection between the level of economic development of a society and the level of nationalism. In his opinion, pre-industrial, agrarian societies are less nationalistic, not distinguished by the diversity of national ties and relationships, or mass migration. More nationalistic, respectively, are industrial and industrialized societies, which at the stage of their organization require the philosophy, ideology and practice of nationalism as a factor in the consolidation that is so necessary for them. True, E. Gellner is sure that post-industrial societies nationalism is becoming less and less popular, which, as evidenced by modern processes, far from it. Nationalism turned out to be in demand in post-industrialism, which allows us to talk about it not only as an instrument of “construction”, consolidation, gathering, but as something deep that always accompanies ethnicity, but in various manifestations.
Social foundations of nationalistic behavior
Despite all the biological nature of nationalism, it would not be entirely correct to consider that it is a pure product of the “collective unconscious” and is directly dependent on the ideas, stereotypes and autostereotypes, myths associated with the perception of oneself and other peoples formed during ethnogenesis. Objective reality is replete with many reasons that can not only actualize nationalist attitudes, but also shape them, giving them a certain vector of development. The extent to which nationalism is predetermined by socio-economic, political and other conditions of national development depends on the specific historical situation. Political and economic crises activate the influence of these factors and provoke conflicts. Not a single major conflict on ethnic grounds begins as a purely ethnic one. But it would also be incorrect to consider the economic sphere exclusively as the determining cause of national contradictions.
In our opinion, among the objective reasons for the current growth of nationalist tendencies in Russia, one should name a change in the ideological platform and a revision of previous collectivist values. We dare to suggest that today, in the conditions of propaganda and inculcation (explicit and implicit) of the philosophy of individualism, social collectivism (including internationalism) has been replaced by national collectivism, which has seriously limited integration possibilities not only at the group level, but also at the individual level. Depending on the characteristics of economic development, either a collectivist or an individualist principle may predominate. In the recent past, under conditions of the dominance of collective forms of ownership (state, public, cooperative), the ideals of collectivism were in demand. With the advent of new forms of property and the establishment of private property, individualism inevitably began to prevail, developing to national individualism.
In relation to national individualism can also be understood as taking into account ethno-local specifics. Such individualism is akin to nationalism as a motive for ethnodefense (ethnocentrism), and therefore is always in demand and understandable. Over time, individualism, like nationalism, turns into an ideology of self-sufficient ethnic development, for which the world of other and collectivist values is less important. And then the interethnic community appears as a set of national individualisms, fragmented and opposing each other in their values and aspirations. We believe that this is not the last reason for the strengthening of nationalist sentiments.
If we take into account the fact that the individual is both collective and individual at the same time, and the national itself is collective and individual, and nationalism itself is the same, then the danger of removing both principles becomes obvious. Today there are clearly expressed attempts, if not to remove the “collective,” then to reduce it, and therefore to minimize its role as a regulator of interethnic relations. And this affected not only the specifics and nature of interethnic relationships, but also, no less important, the characteristics of intranational processes. The phenomena of intra-ethnic split along the collective-individual line have already become quite common: the strengthening of positions of elitism, clanism, the weakening of horizontal intra-national ties and the strengthening of vertical ones. Our respondents, answering the question about which attitudes - collectivist or individualist - are more preferable for them, for the most part (45%) pointed to the latter (and among young people this percentage is much higher - up to 60%), considering the collective to be akin to the social and government intervention that restricts rights, freedoms and fetters individual opportunities. In such a situation, the processes of social design and management are associated with significant difficulties.
One of the forms of expression of individualist sentiments at the national level is the desire for all kinds of isolation and isolation (economic, political, cultural, ideological). For a short period, ethnic isolation may meet the needs of economic development and even lead to its growth. But, having reached a certain level of development, the economy subjectively and objectively requires more space, increased contacts, removal of restrictions and overcoming borders. The national-individualist comes into conflict with the needs of the development of the national itself. It is enough to recall the times when various territories, trying to secede from the republics, territories, regions, cited the economic benefits of independent existence as the main argument.
For example, in the Karachay-Cherkess Autonomous Okrug at one time the opinion became widespread that it had not reached a high level of socio-economic development for the sole reason that it was part of the Stavropol Territory, which simply exploited its resources. Gradually, the conviction grew that the only way to ensure a decent life was to gain independence and improve one’s status. Many then, and even serious economists, were convinced that the region would not only be able to live solely on its own resources, but also export timber to other regions, mineral water, livestock products, chemical and construction industry products. Special hopes were placed on tourism, but they did not materialize. In its desire to move away from the region, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, on the contrary, found itself even more dependent on them, and its socio-economic situation did not improve. Today, “unification” sentiments - with the same Stavropol Territory - are heard more and more often, although nationalist manifestations do not weaken.
Nationalistic attitudes: character, features of overcoming
The study of the phenomenon of nationalism in its various manifestations and the conditions that give rise to them allowed Russian scientists to classify nationalism according to various criteria (the most famous and widely used was the classification proposed by the authors of the book “Democratization and Images of Nationalism in the Russian Federation of the 90s”). The demand for the problematic of nationalism in terms of its types, and we would say faces, was caused by the objective processes taking place at that time in the sphere of national relations. The profound transformations of the entire post-Soviet space primarily affected the area of ethnicity, its role in the development of societies and led to a rethinking of many aspects of ethnicity, in particular nationalism, which was no longer considered an exclusively negative phenomenon (or as a phenomenon “permissible” to small nations).
The division of nationalism into classical, economic, protective, and everyday has already become classic. Such a division, in our opinion, is somewhat arbitrary, because in its pure form none of them exists: we can talk about the prevalence of certain nationalist goals and aspirations caused by a specific historical situation. Moreover, each of them separately contains each other; having been born on one soil, evolving, it can gradually turn into another, change the positivity of its content to negativity - all this allows us to talk about the multidimensionality of nationalism and its extreme complexity. The process of formation and deployment of nationalism is always psychologically colored, and the range of national feelings is emotionally wide and constantly changing. Moreover, transitions from states of indifference and apathy to aggression can occur within a fairly short time. Therefore, for the individual or group itself, the change of nationalisms occurs gradually, imperceptibly.
In our opinion, the mystery of nationalism is precisely how it “manages” to carry out the most amazing metamorphoses with individuals, groups, peoples, turning them from cosmopolitans into patriots, from internationalists into nationalists, and from them into chauvinists and fascists. Having asked the question of why nationalism is so effective and tenacious, we came to the following conclusion: it appeals not so much to reason as to feelings (and even to instincts; this, according to Freud, is the It that controls the I, and the Super-Ego), offers simple, accessible, easily perceived schemes, built on the principle of pure opposition between Us and They, where there is no place for anything other than opposition. Having once arisen (even to achieve the best national goals), this opposition (nationalism) does not disappear, as it may seem at first; on the contrary, it slowly moves in depth and breadth (for there is no end to demands and needs), especially if such opposition has brought certain results.
Thus, in Russia, the era of nationalism began with a parade of sovereignties caused by the collapse of the USSR and the desire of the former Soviet republics for state sovereignty and independence. The classic type of nationalism in the form of the struggle for independence was realized by the formation of new independent states, following the example of which some Russian regions (Tatarstan, Bashkiria, Yakutia, Karelia, Chechnya) followed. They began to pursue an independent policy (Chechnya even declared independence), moving away from the constitutional norms they had previously recognized and trying to gradually acquire the status of subjects of international law. For example, Tuva, Tatarstan, Dagestan independently signed international treaties, created their own security forces; Bashkortostan recognized the sovereignty of the unrecognized Republic of Abkhazia; Yakutia introduced English language as an official Buryatia, Karelia, Ossetia and some others have passed legislation allowing them to declare a state of emergency.
Following them, the parade of sovereignties also embraced smaller national entities striving for an autonomous-ethnocratic existence. Subsequently, similar trends went beyond the boundaries of national entities (this just illustrates the effect of nationalism in depth and breadth); other regions of Russia began to show a desire to gain independence (ideas of creating the Ural Republic and the Far Eastern Territory were voiced).
Thus, classical nationalism acquired the features of separatist, and then ethnocratist. Representatives of the liberal ideology that prevailed in Russia in the 90s considered the nationalism of the period of the collapse of the USSR to be classical as a reaction to the empire and to the national policy of the empire. Today there is an understanding that in this point of view not everything is so simple, and now it is no longer shared by everyone, if only because the empire of the empire is different. And here it is quite appropriate to quote the words of F. Engels, who in 1845 wrote to K. Marx: “I am compiling for the English a glorious list of their sins. In front of the whole world, I accuse the English bourgeoisie of mass murder, robbery and other crimes." It is known that England waged brutal colonial wars against Afghanistan, China, India, South Africa and other places, conquering vast expanses of land with a population of more than 80 million people, and in some areas, like in Africa, the indigenous inhabitants were completely exterminated. Russia, having annexed a number of peoples, did not deprive any of them of their historical future.
In contrast to the concept of empire, today the ideology of Eurasianism is becoming increasingly widespread, the most prominent modern representative of which is L. Gumilyov: while having its own specific place-development and culture, there are also common ones - territory, landscape, civilization. The attractiveness of the idea of a “Eurasian bond” lies in the recognition of the unity of the general and the specific, the material and the spiritual, history and destinies, the formation of a unique mentality, identity, which includes elements of Eurasianism and ethnic specificity. Such an ideology may well create a solid basis for healthy nationalism, for it comprehends the archetypes national culture, psychology, focuses on universally significant meanings, turning them into national motivation, forming behavioral stereotypes understandable to others.
Nationalism and conflict: problems of governance and regulation
The connection between nationalism and conflict is quite obvious, as is the obvious fact that the conflict, being in the space of nationalism, becomes less manageable, difficult to regulate, but not insoluble. By invading the area of conflict, nationalism is capable of giving it the features of an ethnic, intra- and interethnic, ethnopolitical, and ethnocultural conflict. This is explained by the fact that interethnic conflict is a social environment in which the rights and freedoms of the individual, the ethnic group, and the ethno-elite are somehow mixed. The breadth of coverage of the social space by the ethno-national conflict is also evidenced by the fact that it began to be classified as a legal one, calling it also a legal conflict. And this is due to the following circumstances. Interethnic conflict “is clothed in legal forms at three levels: the level of interstate relations of mutually independent subjects, including state entities within the framework of one federation, at the level of relations within the federation along the “vertical” (center - places) and at the level of relations within one state "63.
Interethnic conflicts, which are always associated with manifestations of nationalism, must be resolved not only by political means, but also by legal means. And this is because most of the disputes that give rise to both nationalism and conflict lie in the plane of problems of power, property and are associated with the violation of rights and legal statuses. The degree of expression of the “legal” component of the conflict determines the possibilities of the process of modeling and managing conflicts, in which nationalism most often acts as an instrument of pressure. The less the conflict is involved in the violation of rights and freedoms, the easier it is to resolve (nationalism is not so pronounced here).
Nationalism in conflict is both a manifestation of social conflict and a way of self-realization, attracting attention to oneself, a form of manifestation of the desire to express oneself, to make oneself known. If we take into account the fact that social conflict performs a positive function, being a way of resolving contradictions, and therefore a kind of driving force of development, then the question becomes quite natural as to whether nationalism, including conflict, also performs a similar function. This point of view can also be supported by the interdependence of two trends in the development of societies - sustainable legal conflictology. Both are extremely important: the first provides a moment of stability, reducing the influence of chaos and anarchy, the second - overcoming stagnation and contradictions. Conflict regulation, in our opinion, is an objective intervention that puts a limit on variability that threatens stability.
It’s the same with nationalism in conflict: it’s good, but up to a certain limit. And regulatory mechanisms should come into effect not at the “limit” moment, but throughout the gestation and development of the conflict, in order to prevent the approach of this limit, which is extremely dangerous in its consequences. The complexity of the regulation process lies not so much in the number of parties involved in the conflict (although this is also important, since it determines the area where the conflict will spread), but in the presence of different points of view and vision of the same problem. Often far from the right, because the mass consciousness operates in other categories, with a fair touch of subjectivity, to the mill of which nationalism feeds.
In our opinion, nationalism poses the greatest danger in a conflict precisely because it belittles the role and importance of the rights and freedoms of the individual, and often directly limits them, absolutizing collective rights - the rights and freedoms of an ethnic group, a people who, firstly, they are not always visible and tangible, secondly, they are often unrealistic, and thirdly, they can run counter to personal ones, dictating a given line of behavior for them. And the interethnic conflict itself becomes the cause of many actual restrictions on rights and freedoms that individuals feel on a daily basis. These same restrictions inevitably appear in the course of conflict management. An example of this is the events in the North Caucasus, where a large number of people found themselves alienated from their property, from the right to use it, including for the purpose of generating income, limited in the right to free movement, to choose a place of residence, and fell under tight control from various law enforcement agencies and became the object of bureaucratic arbitrariness. Thus, nationalism and conflict in reality do not bring an expansion of the rights and freedoms of individuals, but also their narrowing, as well as a narrowing of the boundaries of security not only for individuals, but also for entire ethnic groups.
The actual restrictions that arise during the conflict, superimposed on legal restrictions, significantly complicate the process of social regulation by nationalist manifestations, especially if the introduction of restrictions is not associated with the use of a system of benefits and incentives. The greater the scope of restrictions in an interethnic conflict, the more significant the subsequent benefits should be. In addition, the problem also lies in the fact that both restrictions and benefits should apply to all participants in the conflict, regardless of belonging to one or another conflicting party, and perform a protective function in the implementation and protection of rights and freedoms. Otherwise, selective restrictions and benefits may lead to increased nationalistic tendencies and, therefore, to a minimization of regulatory mechanisms.
In general, the use of the restriction mechanism should be thought out to the nuances and the consequences predicted as much as possible. So far, Russia is far from a standard in this regard, as evidenced by many sociological surveys. Thus, according to the results of research by E. Tutinas, when asked whether respondents consider the current Russian legislation in the field of ensuring and protecting human rights and freedoms to correspond to international standards, 3% of respondents answered that it complies to the required extent; 37% - corresponds, with the exception of a number of aspects; 53% - does not correspond; 7% did not give an answer. The author of the study notes that such a high level of criticality of the answers lies, firstly, in the fact that they contain elements of subjectivity in the perception of the real situation. Secondly, what currently prevails in Russia is a somewhat overestimated assessment of the capabilities of international law and an underestimated assessment of domestic law (as in many other things). Thirdly, the respondents were individuals who either lived in conflict zones or were actually faced with the problems of interethnic conflict 4.
National discord, national enmity... Intolerance towards a person with a different language, skin color, different culture. Interethnic conflicts break out in one country and then in another. What's behind this? What fuels this feeling?
The author in this article raises the current problem of interethnic relations in our time.
Lately she has been one of the central problems our lives, increasingly makes itself felt not only in such cases, one of which is described by the author, but also in bloody hooligan clashes. From television screens and from the pages of newspapers we learn about the terrible reprisals of skinheads against foreigners. Nationalism leads to such terrible events - the most disgusting manifestation of the imaginary superiority of one nation over another. The author is especially bitter about the problem that has arisen, because for centuries Russia has traditionally developed as a multinational state, famous for its unified multinational literature, culture, science, international relations, even the victory in the Great Patriotic War is the merit of the entire multinational Soviet people, and attempts to destroy all this cannot cause author's pain.
A clearly formulated author's position: The fight against nationalism is the task of the whole society and every person.
I couldn't agree more with the author. Many arguments can be made in defense of this position. This problem was repeatedly addressed by D. Likhachev, A. Pristavkin, A. Solzhenitsyn and other famous people. And, Pristavkin in the story “The Golden Cloud Spent the Night” examines this problem through the prism of the childhood destinies of Sasha and Kolya Kuzmenysh, he shows. That children are not turned off from each other by the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes. I would also like to highlight the film “We are from the Future,” in which modern skinheads go back in time and participate in battles for their homeland, after which they turn from Nazis into pacifists.
The most striking thing is that the governments of some countries, which are supposed to prevent national conflicts, through their actions contribute to fueling them. Let us recall the incident in Estonia with the relocation of a monument to Soviet soldiers, and in Georgia the explosion of a monument to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, which deeply insulted veterans and the memory of those people who sacrificed their lives to save all humanity from fascism.
It seems that the problem raised by the author is insoluble. As long as humanity has existed, there have been wars and conflicts. If for thousands of years people have not been able to change anything, should we try? Costs! And I am sure that we will succeed if everyone starts with the moral education of themselves.
